US needs much more than the IRA to get to net zero by 2050
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Even the correct expansion, "Inflation Reduction Act" … doesn't really seem to fit.
All of this just seems unrealistic right now with 7 years to go. Without a way to limit consumption through carbon tax, I don't see how the status quo really changes. All of this seems ripe for playing number games.
These things remind me of someone commiting to lose weight for their new years resolution.
But... are we actually 15% below in total, or just per capita? I've heard/read both from various places (all of which escape me now). We might still be emitting more in total, but because of population increase, we're considered 'down' from 2005.
I hope it's 15% down overall.
(And shale gas is one of the reasons for the drop... gas power does better for CO₂ emissions than coal is, and the fracking boom basically killed a lot of the coal industry.)
Per capita, the US is down ~25% from 2005 levels (from ~20t to ~15t).
Natural gas is better in isolation at point-of-use, but that assumes that none of it escapes into the atmosphere at any point along the (literal) pipeline - which, as it turns out, is not a safe assumption, due to shoddy pipelines. As a greenhouse gas, natural gas is actually a few orders of magnitude worse than carbon dioxide[0], so if even a very small amount leaks out it not only wipes out any gains you get from using natural gas instead of coal, but quickly becomes a solution that's worse than the problem.
We probably haven't seen the worst of it yet: in practice, companies have very little long-term liability for the environmental impact of the mining infrastructure as it ages and after it is abandoned, at which point it becomes an effective pump of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. With nobody else responsible for the expensive task, it will probably be up to the government to clean it all up.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explai...
Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent a gas and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 for a 100-year time frame.
So, methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2. We need good numbers, of course, to have a good decision.
That was already discussed in the article I linked. A 100-year timeframe is not relevant for either the 2005-present timeframe or the 2050 goal, which are the benchmarks being discussed.
I've seen predictions that at some point it'll be cheaper to get a new EV than to even keep gasoline in an old ICE car, and once we hit that point it'll flip quickly. 7 years feels tight for that, but not impossible
Several of the mainstream manufacturers have 100% EV goals in 7 years or less. (All of the German manufacturers do, and GM is said to internally have a similar goal despite the kid gloves they treat their shareholders with because US shareholders have too much love for ICE and would tank GM's stock if GM actually said that out loud.)
In neither side of the A/B test do they make too many "definite" statements of what their timelines are for full electrification or for selling their last ICE. Reading between the lines of the EV statements (as the type of investor that believes EVs are the present), their electrification speed has been mostly remarkable and leaves the impression that the GM board isn't as stupid as previous decades' boards have been and knows what the German timescales are (and has some idea of the existential threat of the Chinese car manufacturers that are 100% EV already today) and is trying to stay relevant/competitive in modern timescales. That's admittedly a very personal gut reaction of "hearsay" to intentionally wishy washy PR statements.
"We are also moderating the acceleration of EV production in North America to protect our pricing, adjust to slower near-term growth in demand, and implement engineering efficiency and other improvements that will make our vehicles less expensive to produce, and more profitable."
https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/emergenc...
Actually, even in Europe, cars are getting bigger and bigger. SUVs are very much on the rise, and small cars are getting bigger too.
It's not so much a technical issue than consumer preferences at that stage. Without financiary incentives, I don't see consumers shifting to small/EVs cars
Depends on the region. By just solely concentrating on drivers in urban areas like the Bay Area, LA-SD Metro, Mid-Atlantic, and Chicagoland you can make a large enough dent to impact emissions.
Most of these metropolitan areas are a good fit for electric cars, and in some of these (Bay Area and DMV) around 20-30% of the cars I'd see are Teslas alone.
In general, a road trip within the US won't be a representative slice of the US as most of the population is concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic (Boston, NYC, DC), California (LA, SD, Sacramento, Bay Area), Chicagoland, and Texas (Austin, DFW, Houston).
Now you're getting it. It step 1 of the con. In a con the first thing you do is shut down the mark's reasoning by overwhelming it with an appeal to strong emotion, usually greed or fear. i.e. "We've been trying to reach you about your cars extended warranty, if you don't call now you're car will no longer be covered."
Next you offer a solution to the problem, if you do a good job with the first part the mark will be more focused on either 1) Getting a big payout or 2) Avoiding bad consequences, next you offer them a solution to the problem. If you are really good you'll hint at it and then pull back "Listen I've got this deal, actually never mind I don't think you'd be a good fit." this is the setting the hook.
Finally you ask for the payment, with their logic shortcircuted the mark will then give you whatever you ask because they want relief bad.
What does this have to do with the parent comment? He points out how easy it is to play number games with the things being defined here. This is because the groundwork is being laid for step 2, where the solution of "carbon capture credits" will be introduced.
And before everyone starts angrily downvoting, I'll point out that I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem or that we need to do something about it. I'm saying that the same people in congress who are flying around in private jets and authorizing massive pork payments may not be solely motivated by a selfless desire to save the world and may be a little bit more interested in enriching themselves. But of course we all know politicians are flawless paragons of virute, except for those evil {conservatives|liberals|republicans|democrats|MAGAs|wokies|etc...}
Before you downvote me, I'm going to ask you to take just a minute though and think, isn't a carbon tax a much more effective solution then setting some arbitrary goals, wouldn't it change actual behavior and provide better funding for further action? Stop and think did you reach to downvote me because you felt a strong emotional reaction when you thought I might be anti-climate change? Do you feel if we don't take immediate action right now we'll be doomed?
Just saying cons are all about overwhelming the mark with fear and greed....
P.S Start to look for the pattern in the rest of life, it makes things interesting...
> A 600-plus-page report from the National Academies of Science includes 80 recommendations for how the U.S. can achieve its target of net-zero emissions by 2050.
* https://grist.org/energy/us-scientists-lay-out-a-sweeping-ro...
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine release a 600-page report:
> Addressing climate change is essential and possible, and it offers a host of benefits - from better public health to new economic opportunities. The United States has a historic opportunity to lead the way in decarbonization by transforming its current energy system to one with net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide. Recent legislation has set the nation on the path to reach its goal of net zero by 2050 in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. However, even if implemented as designed, current policy will get the United States only part of the way to its net-zero goal.
* https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25931/accelerating...
Anyone have a direct link to the PDF? As a product of the US government, it's likely in the public domain and completely legal to mirror.
You can download the report as "Guest". They don't verify your email.
Given that there would be little agreement for a new universal governance of human activity, one might think using existing governance structures might be a route. Unfortunately this may not the case. As an example, the recent changes in cargo ship fuel sulfur emissions may have just shifted emissions from atmospheric to oceanic. [0]
IMHO the best way forward is to lean into diffusing technological progress so that the most economic method of different human activities is also the least emitting. These methods may sometimes be initiated or gestated by subsidy but ultimately have to stand on their own, and they must be evaluated by total impact, not just shifting impact.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17072023/ship-scrubbers-w...
https://grist.org/technology/as-e-bikes-grow-in-popularity-s...
FTA: It also estimated that there were nearly 25,000 emergency room visits for e-bike injuries more broadly in 2022. The two-wheelers also have been involved in a spate of high-profile fatalities in recent years, especially in the Big Apple.
-- in my opinion, ebike accidents are following the same pattern as motorcycle accidents pre-hurt report. make sense. From a road handling perspective, both vehicles are functionally identical. Singletrack, small contact patch, counter steering, navigation, situational awareness, and braking skills. It's long past time requiring a ebike driver's license showing that one has taken a skills focused training course like the MSF program.
>Collisions with motor vehicles were the leading cause of death associated with e-bikes
>Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of death associated with e-scooters
So is the potentially unsafe product we should be concerned about e-bikes and scooters? Or is it actually motor vehicles?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9100098/ >Current research mainly analyzes injury-monitoring data. Studies have shown that 27.6% of fatal bicycle accidents in the Netherlands involved EB in 2017 [10]; in Israel, a total of 3686 hospitalized cases were related to EB during 2014–2019 and 84.92% oral and maxillofacial injuries were attributed to EB [11]; and in the United States, there were 130,000 ERTI cases from 2000 to 2017, accounting for 5.3% of the total number of injuries in the emergency department. Among them, 17% of EB caused serious injuries such as traumatic brain injury and internal hemorrhage [12]; in Switzerland, the incidence of ERTI is 17%, and the main causes of injuries are road skidding, riding too fast, and being unable to maintain balance [13]. Langford used GPS technology to analyze the safety behaviors of EB cyclists in a complex traffic environment. The results showed that violations of traffic lights and driving on motorways are high-frequency dangerous riding behaviors [14]. Haustein et al. conducted a questionnaire survey on EB users in Denmark, and the results showed that the riding attitude of cyclists has a significant impact on heavy ERTIs [15]. After analyzing the accident data recorded by the Swiss police in 2011 and 2012, Weber et al. found that ERTI was dominated by Single-Bicycle Crashes (SBCs) [16].
https://pssjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13037...
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are an increasingly common pediatric public health problem
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10372360/
Must-Know E Bike Accident Statistics [Latest Report]
https://blog.gitnux.com/e-bike-accident-statistics/
look at solo bike accident rates. you will see this kinds of accident reports increase until we change how we train how people ride.
for a bit of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_R...
Compare these numbers with motor vehicles (especially how pedestrian deaths by motor vehicle are skyrocketing), and it's clear that our priorities should be placed on safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, not by regulating ebike usage.
https://apnews.com/article/traffic-deaths-distracted-driving...
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deat...
Some hard data on the bike accidents and the kind of injuries that occur. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9100098/ then read the Hurt report
The number 1 best way to reduce accidents between different kinds of vehicles is training people to drive consistently and predictably. Personally I think someone should not get a license to drive until they've shown have mastered driving three types of vehicles (singletrack, dual track light weight, dual track-heavyweight).
https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits/the-need/speed-kil...
Three types of vehicles are singletrack like motorcycle, bicycle. Two wheels oriented on on the same line in the direction of travel. uses countersteering., Dual track, four wheels relatively light mass such as cars or small pickup trucks. Dual track heavyweight which may not be something are familiar with if you didn't grow up with trucks. It's a truck with two wheels in the front and four or eight wheels in the back. Usually require CDL to drive. All of these vehicles handled differently under the same road and weather conditions.
If you train and build skills outside of your normal day-to-day usage, you'll build a cope with the unusual more easily and in this case, be a better driver.
As for your speed kills simplification, it's momentum that kills. How fast you decelerate. Speed kills is for people who aren't knowledgeable of physics and how it applies to their day-to-day life.
https://www.rocketsolar.com/learn/energy-efficiency/how-cost...
Project Drawdown estimates that 3.2 to 4.96 Gt CO₂/y could be sequestered (through 2050) using a combination of tropical forest restoration, temperate forest restoration, and tree plantations on degraded land. The upper figure is only about 10% of worldwide emissions: significant, but not a game-changer. And the projects involved would be nontrivial, to say the least.
If you're interested, I dug into this topic in some depth in a blog post a little while back: https://climateer.substack.com/p/forestation-2.
Planting a tree to save the environment is not simply about the carbon it "sequesters". There are huge positive externalities to planting a tree that come in various forms.
E.g. Something as simple as planting a fruit tree in your backyard. Just imagine these effects:
1. Buying less fruit at shops
2. Less fruit being transported
3. Kids growing up with free food grown from the land
4. People buying land that allows planting a fruit tree
5. People (and their kids that watch) learn about taking care of their surroundings
6. Responsibility to care, prune and water a fruit-bearing tree.
7. Poor communities fed by a tree mean less aid means less 1st world carbon spending for fake 3rd world "feed the poor" brownie points.
8. More fruit rotting on the ground means less fertilizer.
9. More fruits means more birds means more seeds being peppered along the landscape.
Sadly, as with carbon credits, this tree planting concept has been "captured" by opportunists and they just have you give them money so they can "plant" a tree easily on your behalf somewhere halfway around the world so you don't have to worry about it.
Absolutely, trees can provide many benefits separate from CO2 absorption. I was simply responding to GravityLab's comment about CO2. However, it's also worth noting that planting the wrong trees or in the wrong place can backfire: displacing more appropriate vegetation; fire risk; etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Trees
A far cry from 230 billion, but enough that it wouldn't seem like an impossible project for a few world governments to collaborate on.
Another advantage to grasslands is that grasslands help control the tick population. Ticks like shady spots like trees and bushes. They dry out in grasslands.
EDIT: Eventually the forest will climax and start emitting as much CO2 as it absorbs but that's a lot of time to solve the problem at a more fundamental level.
Why inflict enormous economic damage on the U.S. when any benefit will be drowned in the actions of the rest of the world?
Place your effort where the problem is.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/economy/china-carbon-emission...
It follows then that unless you can make a good case that some people have some sort of natural or divine right to emit more CO2 (and thus cause more harm) than do others the correct way to allocate whatever total worldwide CO2 budget we have is to give each person an equal share.
It follows then that each country's fair share of the worlds total CO2 budget is proportional to the population of the country. China has 4.2x the population of the US, but is only emitting 2.2x as much.
Both are over their far share of the world's current emissions, but the US is more over. China's emitting 85% more than their fair share. The US is emitting 207% more than their fair share.
Not really. Here's per capita CO2 emissions of the 10 countries with the highest industrial outputs, plus the EU as a whole and the world as a whole.
14.44 United States
12.13 South Korea
10.8 Russia
8.73 China
8.46 Japan
8.33 Germany
7.77 EU
6.12 France
5.2 United Kingdom
5.03 Italy
4.7 World
2.29 IndiaPer-capita emissions don't matter. Every ton of CO2 contributes the same to global warming regardless of the population of the country that emitted it.
It's because "per-" means different things in "per-capita" and "per-country". In "per-capita", we're dividing emissions by population to get a single number. In "per-country", we're listing the individual emissions of each country. If "per-country" were instead just the total global emissions divided by the number of countries of Earth, then it indeed wouldn't matter either.
> Is Vatican City the best model of a sustainable climate paradise?
Not necessarily, but it is the wrong place to focus if your goal is to reduce total emissions. Imagine trying to optimize a computer program that takes 4 hours to run. If one function's total runtime during the program's execution is 100 milliseconds, even if it's super inefficient and could be rewritten to run in 1 millisecond instead, doing so is not useful progress in speeding up the whole program.
Watch this section in a few years, especially as the cost of the IRA continues to balloon[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act#Econom...
---
[1] https://www.crfb.org/blogs/ira-energy-provisions-could-cost-...
I'm glad the other meaning is being forgotten.